Conspiricy explanation - govt ammo

This came in today. A very clear explanation of some of the accusations flying about. (Emphasis added)

"The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )"

The last few months have seen troubling news of massive government purchases of ammunition. Agencies from the Social Security Administration to the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland Security have purchased millions of rounds. But is the whole thing more hype than substance?

Ever since Barack Obama was first elected in 2008, he has been selling guns and ammunition at a faster clip than any gun salesman could hope for. And since his re-election, citizens have been faced with severe shortages of both. This can only be exacerbated by large government purchases. The Social Security Administration (SSA), for example, purchased 174,000 rounds and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) bought 320,000 rounds. More understandable in purpose but also perhaps more staggering in scale, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put in a request for 450 million rounds, while the FBI intends to purchase 100 million.

The headlines are ominous, but some of the hype can be put in perspective by doing a little math. National Review's Charles C. W. Cooke does just that. The SSA's request for 174,000 rounds amounts to just 590 rounds for each of its 295 inspector general agents "who investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes." Some of us might go through 590 rounds in an afternoon at the range. As for the USDA, 320,000 is enough to provide the same number of rounds for 542 agents, and, through the Forest Service, those agents have an area the size of Pakistan to cover.

When it comes to the bigger orders, Cooke writes, "The FBI and DHS's apparently vast orders are deceptively presented by the conspiracy theorists. It is true that in 2011, the FBI ordered up to 100 million bullets for its 13,913 special agents (which works out to 7,187 per agent). And, yes, the Department of Homeland Security -- a composite department that oversees USCIS, Customs and Border Protection, FEMA, ICE, the TSA, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and the National Protection Directorate -- placed a request for up to 450 million rounds for its 65,000 armed personnel (which works out to 6,923 per agent). But in the real world, ammunition is not divided up and handed out on such a basis. What is bought is stockpiled and then allocated on the basis of need. The DHS's order is expected to last for at least five years, and it was placed up front primarily as a cost-saving measure." Indeed, DHS is not even bound to buy that much; they merely have a tab on which to order more rounds as needed.

That certainly doesn't mean there aren't questions or that we should simply shrug and look the other way. For starters, the Department of Education recently placed an order for "27 Remington Brand Model 870 police 12-gauge shotguns." This might lead any reasonable person to ask, as Cooke does, "Whether it is in possession of one bullet or 1 million bullets, should the federal Department of Education be armed in the first place? If so, why?" We would add, should there even be a Department of Education? But that's a topic for another day. The DoE has been known to botch raids when it was the wrong enforcement vehicle from the start.

The same questions could be asked of any number of bureaucracies. Does the Social Security Administration really need an armed enforcement division? We've known some unruly seniors in our day, but that seems to be overkill.

Then there's the information that's just plain false. Reports have been circulating that DHS has procured 2,717 Mine Resistant Armor Protected (MRAP) vehicles. The truth is, DHS has had retrofitted MRAPs since 2008, and now has 16 of them for serving "high-risk warrants." The figure of 2,717 comes from a delivery to the Marine Corps, not DHS. None of that, however, takes away from the problem that these are more properly military vehicles for war zones, not law enforcement tools. The militarization of law enforcement is undeniably troublesome. Furthermore, DHS is the same bureaucracy that claims right-wing extremists pose a threat, and it's run by an administration that thinks that "weapons of war" shouldn't be on our streets. Unless they're the ones driving them, apparently.

There are certainly troubling trends here and very real threats to our Liberty, but we must be careful not to exaggerate. While readers know that we never minimize the outrageous growth of government beyond its constitutional bounds, it also doesn't seem to us that the government is, as some have put it, "stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest." Questions about procurements and functions? Absolutely. Apocalypse? Not yet.

People who cheer soldiers know they would be the very people they are fearful of in govt "take overs"?

Also, the whole article is a strawman.

barnbwt

March 9, 2013, 08:39 PM

I've said all along this whole deal was simply the govt. cashing in on their guaranteed contracts for a bidded-up commodity (Bidened-up?:D). If you had a contract with some guy who two years ago promised to sell you a bunch of gold at 500$ an ounce, would you take him up on it today? Heck yeah you would. You'd even borrow money to do so. So are these government agencies.

Now, if DHS buys another 5 years of ammo after only six months, I'll consider buying one of those fancy RF blocking headband thingies (not tinfoil--that's for crazies!:p)

The militarization of law enforcement is undeniably troublesome.
Copy that. Sounds like the ACLU is finally raising a fuss about it as well (now that every big city's cops have select-fire SBRs, signals-intelligence operations, black uniforms (and helicopters :D), and para-military training grounds)

TCB

Solo

March 9, 2013, 08:42 PM

But tinfoil scatters radiowaves so well...

alsaqr

March 9, 2013, 09:30 PM

Someone partially debunked "the government is buying ammo to fight us" conspiracy theory.

These are IDIQ contracts. It means Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity.

http://www.fedmarket.com/contractors/Acronym%3A-IDIQ-Contract

One Federal contract is for a maximum of 450 million rounds to be delivered over a period of up to five years.

i have had US government IDIQ contracts. Sometimes i got of years of work, sometimes no work.

ACP

March 9, 2013, 09:30 PM

"Patriot Post"??

Hint: anything with the word "patriot" in it usually means "traitor."

Deus Machina

March 9, 2013, 10:29 PM

Nope, anything with the word 'Post' in it usually means 'traitor.'
That can be cancelled out, and 'Patriot' usually means 'nutjob'.

Donut Destroyer

March 10, 2013, 03:01 AM

In the OP, the DHS order was broken down only by number of rounds per DHS agent. It failed to take something else into account that would make the number of rounds ordered even more understandable....DHS runs the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center program and has centers in Glynco, GA, Artesia, NM and Marana, AZ. DEA, FBI and Border Patrol go through academies elsewhere, but with few other exceptions, ALL of the other Federal agencies send their armed personnel through on of the three locations, mainly Glynco. DHS provides the ammunition for all of this training as well as some of the state and local training done at one of the centers that involves firearms.

Donut Destroyer

March 10, 2013, 03:07 AM

The militarization of law enforcement is undeniably troublesome.

Just out of curiosity....why is some degree of this a problem?

AlbertH

March 10, 2013, 10:12 AM

Years ago, I had a co-worker who refused to get cable tv for he was positive that if he had cable tv hooked up in his house, the government could see everything that was going on in his living room via the cable and his tv.

It really amazes me how some can seem to fear the government with hand, and use the other hand to provide that very same government a complete insight into their life, where they live, which weapons they own, how much ammo they have, and their political views simply by using the internet.

Each computer, tablet, phone, etc has a Unique Identifying Device of some sort in it. That's how one computer is able to talk to another, thus a direct path to the user.

The only real way to keep others in the dark is to "GO COMPLETELY OFF THE NET" i.e. become self sustained, back to living life before the industrial revolution.

So are you ready to live off the net or is the loss of some privacy allowable in order to enjoy the comforts that the industrial revolution has provided us with?

Just my thoughts,

Al

SCPigpen

March 10, 2013, 10:27 AM

Part of me says the current admin is not as smart as some make them out to be. The other part says they make up for smarts with evil. I guess time will tell.

kgpcr

March 10, 2013, 10:43 AM

I am not the least big worried about the Military. As one who spent 6 years in the Corps i can tell you that there is no way they would turn on the people of the US to the degree they would use those bullets on us

Bubbles

March 10, 2013, 10:55 AM

In the OP, the DHS order was broken down only by number of rounds per DHS agent. It failed to take something else into account that would make the number of rounds ordered even more understandable....DHS runs the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center program and has centers in Glynco, GA, Artesia, NM and Marana, AZ. DEA, FBI and Border Patrol go through academies elsewhere, but with few other exceptions, ALL of the other Federal agencies send their armed personnel through on of the three locations, mainly Glynco. DHS provides the ammunition for all of this training as well as some of the state and local training done at one of the centers that involves firearms.
Excellent point! FLETC trains 80,000 students per year. In some advanced handgun classes I've taken I used over 1000 rounds per day. Do the math.

Secret Service, Coast Guard, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement also fall under DHS.

soloban

March 10, 2013, 11:03 AM

Another point to consider is that from a contract administration point of view it makes sense to have one agency administer one big contract vs each one having their own small one. Saves a lot of money and overhead doing that. Other examples would be how the Army is the procuring agency for MREs.

chris in va

March 10, 2013, 08:39 PM

I need to keep that article handy every time I read these stupid conspiracy theory posts on Facebook.

Onward Allusion

March 10, 2013, 10:17 PM

Donut Destroyer

Quote:
The militarization of law enforcement is undeniably troublesome.

Just out of curiosity....why is some degree of this a problem?

Some degree? No, not a problem, especially when some of the gangs have fairly substantial firepower, but most departments reached that "some degree" level within 5 years after 9/11. The police is not the armed forces and they shouldn't be. However, that line is being blurred as the result of their weaponry and training.

What is questionable are the Urban Assault Vehicles, Black Hawk Helicopters, SBR's, Drones...etc.. Why does the local LE agencies need them? To maintain order?

This is why the ACLU launched an investigation, and there are numerous news stories on this subject. A 2 second Google search will show this.

Donut Destroyer

March 10, 2013, 11:23 PM

Some degree? No, not a problem, especially when some of the gangs have fairly substantial firepower, but most departments reached that "some degree" level within 5 years after 9/11. The police is not the armed forces and they shouldn't be. However, that line is being blurred as the result of their weaponry and training.

What is questionable are the Urban Assault Vehicles, Black Hawk Helicopters, SBR's, Drones...etc.. Why does the local LE agencies need them? To maintain order?

I'm still not sure what this line is you refer too. Police training, and tactics are constantly evolving. It has to because the situations LEO's are put into are changing also. The training is meant to give the officer the best knowledge of situations he may encounter and what actions to use to stay alive in those situations. Frequently, tactics are taken from the military because urban warfare is the type of battle soldiers are facing more and more, so why not take what they have learned and adapt it to the type of urban warfare LEO's face, and yes, it is warfare. Obviously, there must be changes and restrictions, but the tactics are still sound.

So now, equipment:

Urban Assault Vehicles - The Bearcat is one of the most popular armored vehicles in use by law enforcement today. Its design is to protect officers, usually SWAT or other special service units, as they approach high risk incidents. It's nature is one of ballistic protection, officers going in and officers and civilians coming out. Occasionally, a department will get a surplus military vehicle for a good price and use it for the same thing. LEO's are not bullet proof, so why shouldn't they have vehicles that are?

Black Hawk Helicopters - Or, more appropriately, "Black Helicopters" as most think. Black Hawks are incredibly expensive to buy, fly and maintain, so they are rare in civilian use and then usually only by large, well funded agencies. The ones mostly in use today are Bell JetRanger variants, Robinson R22 or R44, Hughes 500 variants, A-Stars or the occasional UH1 Huey variant. They make great aerial observation platforms to cover LEO ground operations, traffic enforcement, disaster support, felony apprehension (FLIR is a wonderful tool for finding and following people and vehicles - many times reducing the hazards of a vehicle pursuit by allowing ground units to drop back and set up perimeters to box suspects in), NightSun equipment and plain old rapid transportation. Aircraft are tools.

SBRs - Another tool. Most LEOs don't carry rifles, but the concept of the patrol carbine is evolving also. You wouldn't take a baseball bat to a gunfight would you? Why should LEO's have to be stuck with a handgun or shotgun in a situation where a rifle would be the better tool. SBRs are just short rifles, they are easier to maneuver in close quarters, store in and get out of police vehicles. The actual select fire ones are largely restricted to special operations units. Most patrol carbines are semi-auto.

Drones - A technology that is just coming into the realm of civilian law enforcement. Again, an aerial observation platform that can get in closer and quieter than conventional aircraft. Great for covering undercover operations or for providing real time video feeds of fluid situations, be it natural disaster or man made. All the benefits of air support at a fraction of the cost.

These are all tools. Would you want a plumber to come to your house and not have the tools he needs to fix your problem? How about a surgeon? By bringing up situations where someone has misused a tool or the situation just went bad because sometimes they do, and then say that those tools shouldn't be available, well isn't that the same thing as saying that civilians shouldn't be allowed to have assault weapons because sometimes they get abused? Look around at just this site and see the responses that are coming about because of the proposed assault weapons bans. Are you saying that it's OK for Joe Critter Redneck (just a name I heard on Blue Collar Radio, don't get upset) to have an assault rifle, but it isn't OK for the police to have them?

When the shooting starts, cops run TOWARD the sound of gunfire, so why shouldn't they have every advantage at their disposal that they can get?

Old Dog

March 10, 2013, 11:32 PM

Donut Destroyer, injecting reason into one of these threads destroys all the fun ...

Let's just accept that everyone loves technological advances, unless they're given to law enforcement, too ...

We should just just go back to an ol' six-inch Colt Police Positive six-shooter in a crappy swivel holster;
- an extra twelve rounds of lead round nose 130-grainers in loops on the belt;
- a sap in a side pocket;
- and five-cell MagLites;
- 870 or 500 in the cruiser, sans extended mag tube.
Oh, and no radios -- let's go back to those old phones in boxes every few blocks on the street, and if you're a rural deputy, yep, yer just SOL with no comms ...

Donut Destroyer

March 10, 2013, 11:48 PM

Donut Destroyer, injecting reason into one of these threads destroys all the fun ...

Let's just accept that everyone loves technological advances, unless they're given to law enforcement, too ...

LOL...I'm sorry Will, I didn't mean to stir up trouble....

You certainly did stir up some memories though....I still have my original S&W M19, and yes, I carried it in a swivel holster, until the swivel broke while I was chasing someone and didn't realize it until I caught the guy...man, what a deflating feeling that was. I've also got my original KEL light (before the MagLite). I worked for about 5 years before I got my first portable radio assigned to me. The pool radios we had weighed about 5 pounds and a transmit range measured in inches (VHF Low Band, 39.16 if I recall). When my old chief wanted to start up a small "SWAT" team, he even outfitted us with .357 magnum lever action rifles, because we could interchange our revolver ammo if needed...I always wondered about that though, because he wouldn't let us carry .357 ammo in our revolvers, only .38+P at the most.....Ah yes, the good old days-Air support was a Bell 47 helicopter that the Sheriff's Office had that would occasionally start. Armored vehicles meant you borrowed one from Wells Fargo for an emergency...

Carl N. Brown

March 10, 2013, 11:50 PM

Quote:
The militarization of law enforcement is undeniably troublesome.

Just out of curiosity....why is some degree of this a problem?

Col Thomas Lujan was legal advisor for the Special Forces at the time of Waco and later wrote this article for the US Army War College. It is hard to read it withput getting the impression that using the military in law enforcement or military tactics, heavy hardware and training in civilian law enforcement has the potential of being a very bad thing.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/Articles/97autumn/lujan.htm
Thomas R. Lujan, "Legal Aspects of Domestic Employment of the Army", Parameters US Army War College Quarterly, Autumn 1997, Vol. XXVII, No. 3.

Donut Destroyer

March 10, 2013, 11:58 PM

Col Thomas Lujan was legal advisor for the Special Forces at the time of Waco and later wrote this article for the US Army War College. It is hard to read it withput getting the impression that using the military in law enforcement or military tactics, heavy hardware and training in civilian law enforcement has the potential of being a very bad thing.

A guy I know who was at Waco made the comment to me before hand that the operation had the propensity to come off very well, or to go to Hell very quickly. Obviously, every situation isn't the same and obviously Waco was a unique situation. The government forces had lost the element of surprise and knew it. The operation should have been cancelled and wasn't. That isn't a fault of equipment or training, that was a fault of supervision. The ground agents had 9mm MP5's against AKs, M4s and at least one .50 cal. Their weaponry was inferior. In hindsight, Waco was a LE disaster but it was not because the LEOs had the wrong training or too much firepower.

barnbwt

March 11, 2013, 12:17 AM

Let's just accept that everyone loves technological advances, unless they're given to law enforcement, too ...

I think the sentiment is that "everyone loves technological advances, unless they're withheld from the public while massively promoted by authorities" :rolleyes:. It's long been my belief (maybe I'm wrong) that police are intended to have force parity with civilians/criminals, but unlike them, are authorized to use that force to maintain order. The military is permitted far more powerful means, but they are generally prohibited from excercizing their authority on American soil during peacetime. The military is so centralized that its authority is inherently limited; it can't be everywhere at once no matter how strong it is*. However, the police are nearly everywhere, so giving them massively unbalanced means of force over the population is just begging for trouble (or is it a coincidence that the most disarmed big cities have the most militarized cops, highest crime rates, and most corrupt leaders? :scrutiny:)

*autonomous drones are a new force multiplyer that could threaten this age-old check on the military's power if their use is not strictly limited within our borders

"And for everyone's safety and security, and to preserve our way of life, I'm taking a drastic step and putting up a security camera. Just one... for safety, security, and omniscient, unblinking information gathering of everyone's activities.":D
"I have my own army with the NYPD...the seventh largest in the world"
-Bloomberg

TCB

Old Dog

March 11, 2013, 12:30 AM

It's long been my belief (maybe I'm wrong) that police are intended to have force parity with civilians/criminals,Am I to understand that you do not desire police to have access to better tools than the criminals? "Force parity?"

However, the police are nearly everywhere, so giving them massively unbalanced means of force over the population is just begging for trouble Huh? "Nearly everywhere?" Are you aware of the ratio of police to citizens in most jurisdictions? And that would certainly belie the old saw, "When trouble happens, the police are ___ minutes away." And "massively unbalanced means of force over the population?" Feel free to expound on that one, if you desire (for the edification of those of us who know just how underfunded and underequipped most law enforcement agencies in this country really are).

I've got no problem with my law-abiding next-door neighbor keeping an MP5 on his nightstand (though frankly, I got no use for that platform, I'd rather use a base model M4) or a Ma Deuce on his deck (I wouldn't mind having one myself) but to suggest law enforcement agencies have massively out-geared the populace (well, outside of NYC, Chicago, SoCal and NJ) is sorta amusing to me.

kgpcr

March 11, 2013, 12:32 AM

Put yer tinfoil hat on!

Donut Destroyer

March 11, 2013, 12:34 AM

(maybe I'm wrong) that police are intended to have force parity with civilians/criminals,

I won't say you are wrong because that is your opinion, but I will disagree with you. There is nothing that says that police have to on a par with criminals. Most use of force continuums allow for +1 force response. That is the level of force used can be one level greater than the force encountered. If a criminal is trying to fight with his fists or feet, the officer can escalate one level and use an intermediate weapon (TASER, baton, OC, etc.) The Marquis de Queensbery rules do not apply on the streets. The only way we can ask law enforcement to do their jobs effectively is to make sure they have the best equipment and training they can get. The basic tactics and equipment that the military uses can easily be adapted for civilian law enforcement as long as the adaptation fits the situation. Obviously the military has a different way of looking at encounters, because it is different, but then in civilian law enforcement there is no such thing as acceptable losses or acceptable collateral damage, so yes, changes must be made, but the concepts are sound. And I'm not advocating the use of autonomous, armed drones, but there are many different types of drones of varying capabilities. The right ones with the right equipment in the right situation can make a big difference, as with any tool. Don't hamper the LEO on the street because city bigwigs are corrupt, take care of that problem independently.

BullfrogKen

March 11, 2013, 12:40 AM

. . . but we must be careful not to exaggerate

Word.

ApacheCoTodd

March 11, 2013, 12:48 AM

I'd sure like to see any one of these illuminating articles tell me what the per-trainee and per sworn officer purchases were in past years.

Given the vast expansion in carrying officer numbers, I'm not to concerned.

Back in the 90's, I trained some weirdos at the Artesia, NM FLETC and watching the monsterous amounts of handgun and submachine gun ammo they went through back then (at only one site and mostly for initial training) causes me to take these "reports" with a grain of salt as to their singularity of volume.

jim243

March 11, 2013, 01:19 AM

Put yer tinfoil hat on!

OH NO, now we are going to have all that tinfoil flying off the shelves and have a tinfoil shortage. My wife is going to take a rolling pin to my head, no more dishes for her sunday church meetings covered in her favorate material. No more sandwichs packed for lunch in neat little squares of foil, now I will have to suffer with sticky plastic bags that hold in the moisture and make the bread soggy. And what thanksgiving and christmas is being cancled because the turkey and ham can not be made without those tinfoil pans and tinfoil on top of the main course!!!!!!!

This is becomming another emergency, quick everyone sign a petition to the tinfoil manufacturers to double their production so that life can continure as normal and my wife can stay calm.

I suppose we could use stainless steel, but that would impact the production of guns that I love to buy. (LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL)

Besides tinfoil hats get too hot to wear in the mid day sun.
Jim

Donut Destroyer

March 11, 2013, 01:45 AM

Try a metal colander. Re-usable and easy to attach with wires to the chicken wire on the walls and ceiling for extra protection. And with the ventilation holes it's good for summer use.

jim243

March 11, 2013, 01:47 AM

^^^^^^ LOLOLOLOL.

I like your sense of humor.

Jim

Fishslayer

March 11, 2013, 04:09 AM

Ever since Barack Obama was first elected in 2008, he has been selling guns and ammunition at a faster clip than any gun salesman could hope for. And since his re-election, citizens have been faced with severe shortages of both...

Ummmm... no. While the current occupier has undoubtedly sold more guns than Sam Colt, Horace & Daniel and Bill & Alex combined, the present hysteria has more to do with impending restrictions post Newtown... i.e. uncertainty.

The first Great Ammo Drought was over in 2010.

BigBore44

March 11, 2013, 04:15 AM

Why are LEO's being viewed as the bad guys? They are the ones who fight crime. Granted they can't "protect" us. But they catch the bad guys. They put them in jail. No they can't get them all, and there are bad apples. But they are on the front lines everyday. Every traffic stop could be their last. Every "disturbance" can be a shootout. Every "alarm" is an unknown. Would you want to do a building search in a bad area with a maglite and 357 revolver? I woldn't. I want officers to have the best weapons, the best body armor, and the best training possible. And I think anyone who doesn't want that, might have something to hide.

Skylerbone

March 11, 2013, 04:18 AM

A few random thoughts on what I've just read.

As for the article in the OP, I agree that the numbers appear astronomical to the uninformed which is why conspiracy and fear work so well. To the person claiming a straw argument, I overheard these same purchase numbers discussed by two different vendors at a gunshow this weekend. Sorry, didn't interrupt to write down names.

To the person who feels a second large round of orders on the back of these six months from now might be a sign that something is afoot, consider the Continuing Resolution that funds the government. Baseline Budgeting holds that a previous year's budget becomes the basis for next year's need and builds in an increase of 4-10%. So, after the bailout apportioned huge increases to many of these departments, bloated budgets have left excess funds available so don't be too spooked if these same departments spend like crazy (and maybe buy more ammo).

To those who believe all law enforcement should have and use the best technology available to "do their job". Where do you draw the line? Do you hold that if the federal government uses thermal imaging cameras and listening devices to to watch suspects (those people with multiple firearms, thousands of rounds of ammo and emergency supplies...like members here) that local law enforcement ought to do the same? Best tools don't make their use right or justified IMO.

The comment that Waco was a lack of training...realize 80+ people lost their lives over the attempted serving of a search warrant. That warrant held that individuals had violated laws that violated the Second Amendment but hey, rules are rules.

I grew up the son of a law enforcement officer who started and finished his career outgunned for more than a quarter century. I can certainly appreciate the sentiment that better tools make many jobs easier but I do feel a line is being crossed and legislation introduced that makes the future a rather unsettling place to live in. I don't wear tinfoil hats but I recognize the erosion of freedom when I see it.

dmancornell

March 11, 2013, 04:26 AM

Why are LEO's being viewed as the bad guys? They are the ones who fight crime. Granted they can't "protect" us. But they catch the bad guys. They put them in jail. No they can't get them all, and there are bad apples. But they are on the front lines everyday. Every traffic stop could be their last. Every "disturbance" can be a shootout. Every "alarm" is an unknown. Would you want to do a building search in a bad area with a maglite and 357 revolver? I woldn't. I want officers to have the best weapons, the best body armor, and the best training possible. And I think anyone who doesn't want that, might have something to hide.

The cops don't "catch bad guys". They serve the state by enforcing the law. The law is sometimes right about the definition of "bad guys". Usually, it is not. But it is not the job of the police to decide who is a bad guy, it is the courts and juries. The militarization of police only serves to escalate situations and create violent confrontations where none existed, thus preventing them from doing their actual job (i.e. apprehending suspects).

Also your casual slur that anyone who dares question the police state must have something to hide is laughable. We want the police to have the same weaponry and equipment as civilians not because we fear being outgunned in a SWAT raid, but because we believe in the principles of equality under the law, not exceptions and loopholes for anyone with a government issued badge.

-v-

March 11, 2013, 04:00 PM

I'm a little unsure of the comments regarding PD's using drones. A predator drone is a multi-million dollar machine that requires trained operators and a multi-million dollar command and control "trailer". This is not what most police agencies would be getting, it would more likely be the 5-10 foot wingspan drones that are little more then RC planes on steroids. Sure, it might be deadly if the pilot crashed that thing right into you at full speed, but thats about it.

What it gives is that now smaller departments can afford to have a rapid "On-Call" air surveillance asset for pursuits and searches. No need to keep a helicopter and trained pilots, with increasingly better software, these things basically fly themselves. Best part, drones are cheap to run and cheap to maintain.

As for all of who are concerned about them...eh with about $1000 bucks and an internet connection you can build one of your own to orbit your house and provide 24/7 surveillance....or just aggravating your neighbors.

Tinpig

March 11, 2013, 04:21 PM

I am not the least big worried about the Military. As one who spent 6 years in the Corps i can tell you that there is no way they would turn on the people of the US to the degree they would use those bullets on us

I'm glad you're so optimistic.
According to this 1994 survey, when asked the question:
would you fire on U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government?
26% of Marines surveyed, said they would.

And 80% of the Marines surveyed indicated they would be willing to "participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force."

http://thenewalexandrialibrary.com/armysurvey.html

Tinpig

Donut Destroyer

March 11, 2013, 08:34 PM

Do you hold that if the federal government uses thermal imaging cameras and listening devices to to watch suspects (those people with multiple firearms, thousands of rounds of ammo and emergency supplies...like members here) that local law enforcement ought to do the same?

Ummm....Yes. What I don't hold to is that any federal agency dedicates itself to watching anyone burying things in the yard or stockpiling ammo and MRE's. There are MANY more reasons why NightVision, FLIR and listening devices are valuable tools.

The comment that Waco was a lack of training...realize 80+ people lost their lives over the attempted serving of a search warrant. That warrant held that individuals had violated laws that violated the Second Amendment but hey, rules are rules.

Yes, many people did lose their lives at Waco and most were by the hand of David Koresh and his lieutenants. The warrant that was in effect was lawfully signed by a judge and was for violations of federal law, not the 2nd Amendment. You say you were the son of a law enforcement officer, but obviously you never have been. You only see one side of the issue.

The cops don't "catch bad guys"

Really??? You mean after all these years, all the paperwork and all the people who went to jail, I never actually arrested a bad guy? OK, I see the hair you are trying to split here. Innocent until proven guilty. But that's like saying the price of gasoline isn't affected by OPEC because they don't sell gasoline, they sell oil. It isn't gasoline until it leaves the refinery. Let's face it, there are some bad people just wandering around. I can point out several that are just a waste of good air space. When they get arrested it is a bad guy getting arrested. It IS the job of the police to determine if there is enough probable cause to bring someone to a court, and some of the ones that are brought to court are very bad guys.

We want the police to have the same weaponry and equipment as civilians not because we fear being outgunned in a SWAT raid, but because we believe in the principles of equality under the law,

If the civilians are peaceful, then weaponry doesn't matter. If they are violent and intent on doing LEOs harm, then there is no such thing as a principle of equality. You have obviously never worn a badge either and have no clue what it's like. LEOs are trained how to survive. There is no fair or unfair when it comes to survival. It has nothing to do with exceptions or loopholes. They need and should be given every advantage available to be able to do their jobs effectively and to reduce the amount of danger they and bystanders are subject to at the hands of criminals who don't have shooting review boards and disciplinary panels and a, yes, dare I say it....a conscience. Do I think LEOs need artillery? No. Airstrikes? No. MOABs? No. Quality weapons and technical equipment? Yes. Absolutely.

12gaugeTim

March 11, 2013, 08:55 PM

Can I just say how counterproductive it is to dismiss anyone with an opinion that's even slightly outlandish as a tin foil hat wearing lunatic? People who mock like that are the reason why conspiracy theorists are no longer respected and the phrase itself lends an extremely negative connotation. Keep in mind the common folk would probably write off anyone who fears a government takeover or martial law as a "paranoid tin foil hat wearer".
Don't encourage people to blindly follow what the media says. Remember that Watergate was, at one time, nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Don't encourage people to sit inside Plato's cave of ignorance with you because its comfortable there and you'd rather not ask the hard questions.

dmancornell

March 11, 2013, 09:01 PM

Really??? You mean after all these years, all the paperwork and all the people who went to jail, I never actually arrested a bad guy? OK, I see the hair you are trying to split here. Innocent until proven guilty. But that's like saying the price of gasoline isn't affected by OPEC because they don't sell gasoline, they sell oil. It isn't gasoline until it leaves the refinery. Let's face it, there are some bad people just wandering around. I can point out several that are just a waste of good air space. When they get arrested it is a bad guy getting arrested. It IS the job of the police to determine if there is enough probable cause to bring someone to a court, and some of the ones that are brought to court are very bad guys.

It is the job of the police to determine if there is probable cause of violating the law, not whether they are good or bad. "Taking care of bad guys" is a meaningless argument, albeit one that is used ad nauseum by police cheerleaders.

And frankly, by referring to the principle of innocent before proven guilty as "splitting hairs", I have no reason to trust your moral compass, no matter how many "bad guys" you claimed to have locked away.

If the civilians are peaceful, then weaponry doesn't matter. If they are violent and intent on doing LEOs harm, then there is no such thing as a principle of equality. You have obviously never worn a badge either and have no clue what it's like. LEOs are trained how to survive. There is no fair or unfair when it comes to survival. It has nothing to do with exceptions or loopholes. They need and should be given every advantage available to be able to do their jobs effectively and to reduce the amount of danger they and bystanders are subject to at the hands of criminals who don't have shooting review boards and disciplinary panels and a, yes, dare I say it....a conscience. Do I think LEOs need artillery? No. Airstrikes? No. MOABs? No. Quality weapons and technical equipment? Yes. Absolutely.

Your job is to serve the state. The state should not be more well-armed than the civilians it supposedly serves. That is the heart of the 2nd Amendment. If your definition of quality weapons and equipment is the exact same items legally available to civilians at the same prices, then we have no conflict. If you think your survival requires pissing on 2A, then you should just quit your job.

Donut Destroyer

March 11, 2013, 09:43 PM

I never said the principle of innocent until proven guilty was "splitting hairs", I said your opinion that someone can't be deemed as a bad guy until he is proven such by a court was said hair splitting. Meant as the phraseology, not the principle. And no matter how politically correct you want the world to be, the simple fact is that some people are bad as soon as they open their eyes in the morning and no court determination will change that. It's just a term....get over it.

If you really look at the weapons and technology I'm referring to, you will likely find that it IS all available to the general public. I can't do anything about prices, but there is nothing in the armory of my agency that isn't legal to own by private citizens, so I guess we have no conflict there, just a viewpoint from a different angle.

I'm not sure where anywhere in my post did I mention "pissing on 2A" in order to survive, so I won't belabor that remark and I'm certainly not going to quit my job just because you have a bone to pick with law enforcement, or so it seems.

The "heart of the 2nd Amendment" was about civic responsibility to protect the state. I'm doing my part, what are you doing?

Shadow 7D

March 11, 2013, 09:45 PM

Used to be most things were solved on a PERSONAL level, no need to bring the law into it
now nobody will do anything
everything involves the law

and what used to be a cop, would call on a posse, and expect the lawful citizen to assist them, well... no the mentality is US/THEM

Old Dog

March 11, 2013, 10:17 PM

Your job is to serve the state.ah, no. I suspect you'd find (if you ever go out from in front of your computer and got to know some real cops) that most believe the job is to serve the people; some of us just happen to be employed by the state. Or is this, too, hair-splitting?

"Taking care of bad guys" is a meaningless argument, albeit one that is used ad nauseum by police cheerleaders.So, uh, just who is it then that's taking care of the bad guys? You? Your buddies? Every time I hear someone refer to "police cheerleaders" I tend to think that person has an agenda. You seem to.

The "heart of the 2nd Amendment" was about civic responsibility to protect the state. I'm doing my part, what are you doing?Why, he's scoring debate points on The Internet! They also serve, those who point, type and click.

JohnBT

March 11, 2013, 10:56 PM

"Used to be most things were solved on a PERSONAL level, no need to bring the law into it"

My father was a Virignia State Trooper after he got back from the Pacific and WWII. You must be talking about a time well before his. His cousin was a county sheriff for two or three decades back then and people certainly did call the cops regularly.

John

Sol

March 11, 2013, 11:04 PM

Until I see criminals regularley armed with full autos (not that they are more effective than semis) or a $9000 sniper rifle with a $4500 optic mounted on it, only then would I believe criminals out gun cops.

Keep in mind, that Hague or Geneva banned the use of hollow points in war and those rounds WILL be used domestically, either in training or whatever else.

barnbwt

March 11, 2013, 11:11 PM

You have obviously never worn a badge either and have no clue what it's like. LEOs are trained how to survive. There is no fair or unfair when it comes to survival.
I admire and respect the honorable service of all LEO and Military, current and prior. I thank them when I see my local police performing valuable functions in my community, and I do my part to promote the twin aims of Strength and Order in this country. I fully understand the desire for self-protection in a risky line of work. Not only from physical harm, but from prosecution and job security as well. When that unending quest for self-protection becomes a quest for superiority, it comes into conflict with individual liberty. For a sacred order of knights charged with upholding the rule of law in the land, police sure seem to be exempt from many of the laws they hold dear. As a common civilian, I see that as a conflict of interest. Fear is a powerful tool for garnering respect, and I fear many police see it as a means to secure personal safety on the job (yes, this is a "morals" vs. "realism" conundrum that requires careful balance)

Back in the day, police were criminally undergunned with their snub revolvers, and many needlessly lost their lives in situations they had no hope of surviving. Had they been allowed parity of weaponry with their suspects, their tactics, training, and organization would have likely carried the day in many of those cases. Even more civilians would have been able to fight back, force for force, with those who preyed upon them had they had the same weaponry. That is what I am advocating. Criminals will always be capable of getting the same guns police have, so they can be assumed to always be at least equal to police in equipment (radios, guns, armor, etc.). The "9s" carried by 'bangers are essentially equivalent to most service sidearms already. And yet law abiding citizens are for some reason supposed to be content spectators of the perpetual arms race and welcome disadvantage.

Military force has its place; the absolute destruction and subjugation of an implacable foe through that most horrible of contrivances "war." Police are supposed to be constructors of order, not bringers of overwhelming destructive force.

to suggest law enforcement agencies have massively out-geared the populace (well, outside of NYC, Chicago, SoCal and NJ) is sorta amusing to me.
Thank you for making my point for me (especially if you intended to do so ;)). The governments and police forces in these areas are notoriously heavy-handed at times, have a reputation for flagrantly arrogant behavior (stop and frisk, anyone?), and are above any real accountability from their populations (how many Governors and senior politicians in Chicago are in the clink now, and yet there's still no repudiation of political dynasties, or a RICO case taking down the entire political hirearchy?).

I'm a little unsure of the comments regarding PD's using drones. A predator drone is a multi-million dollar machine that requires trained operators and a multi-million dollar command and control "trailer".
Progress, my friend, progress. Automatic guns were once trailer-mounted crew-served weapons, and 8-bit computers massively expensive contraptions spanning rooms and dozens of operators. In a year or even now, autonomous drones will be more the norm, only needing human direction occaisionally when important decisions (hint, hint) are needed. In the States, they will probably be used more like tower-mounted cameras, patrolling the same general "beat" gathering footage to be compiled for pending cases later, or targeted to observe suspects or other persons of interest. It's important we get out in front of this before we have a surveillance state like London in our big cities--it's not paranoia, it's human nature that authorities tend to take as much of the blanket as we give them. Seeing how our government acts with such impunity using drones overseas, I have every reason to be suspicious of their use over my roof.

Don't encourage people to sit inside Plato's cave of ignorance
Nice reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave) :cool:. I've always imagined lots of mooing and baah-ing from the people tied up in that cave :D. For the record, I fear no totalitarian takeover in this nation, but I do know history. Terrible regimes alway ascend faster than anyone expects (Italy just elected a "charismatic loudmouth's" party of unknown origin; sound familiar?) I've seen where authorities are given an out to expand their influence, they take it, and then reap every reward that influence can garner. Our brilliantly frustrating system of checks and balances wasn't put together in response to a government that had crushed every means of resistance, but to guard against a government ever having such ambitions.

I noticed this "Ammo Conspiracy" story has finally made Forbes online magazine...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
Still sounds a bit hokey as far as tin-foilery (they don't mention clearly that the contracts are an optional maximum), but the desire for under-oath explanations from the folks making these (budgetarily dubious) decisions seems legitimate.

some of us just happen to be employed by the state
In a more rural setting, I would guess (since I'm not from one) that authority is more locally distributed and the police are highly responsible to their community, whom they know personally. The big cities is different. There are so many police, so many people, that both become mere faces to eachother, initiatives and assignments are directed from on high, and the only real input the public has on the process is occaisional votes for bonds and commissioners--about as indirect an oversight process as can be imagined. Here, the police have great latitude as to how to govern their affairs, with little to no regard for the public's perception so long as the city government approves. That said, there are an awful lot of rural towns here in Texas who over the years have had to round up their entire police departments for corruption and drug running.

My criticism is not of individual officers' honorable and valuable service, but of how it may be misdirected by their superiors if they are not reigned in appropriately. Just as many non-gunnies are ignorant of the potential they may need a gun one day, many people fail to percieve the ebb and flow of political power through our system (which "grows from the barrel of a gun").

I have always wondered one thing about police. Has the approach and attitude taken by local police changed the attitudes and reaction citizens have towards police, or have police changed their approach as a reaction to the attitudes of the people. I know what the LEO's are going to say, but, like they like to accuse us, they probably only see one side of the argument. I am 36. I can remember being a kid talking to cops around the neighborhood, in the hardware store drinking coffee with the old men, around the VFW, doughnut shop, grocery store, etc. We knew them by name and everyone liked them. This is in a blue collar neighborhood in DFW, not some small town. Now police are intimidating if you do not know them, and the last thing they are is approachable. They feel they have to dominate every situation they are in no matter what that situation may be. I am white collar now and don't trust them. I have seen them do things that there predecessors would never dream of. I would imagine that the amount of people that do not trust police today is far higher than it was then, at least in my parts. Honest working people back then saw them as honest working people too. Now they view them with far more suspicion. And from all of that are we safer today? Are police? I read an article on a plane last year, I thin in the Economist, that you are more likely to be injured or killed today by a cop than you were fifty years ago, and twice as likely to be involved in an incident involving casualties today than then. I wish I could find that article to cite it, but it did get me thinking about my hometown.

Sorry, I know that has nothing to do with the OP.

dmancornell

March 12, 2013, 12:05 AM

ah, no. I suspect you'd find (if you ever go out from in front of your computer and got to know some real cops) that most believe the job is to serve the people; some of us just happen to be employed by the state. Or is this, too, hair-splitting?

LOL, I totally believe that cops think they serve the people. It's called delusion. The same delusion that fuels some cops' persecution complex, which makes them defend laws that prohibit civilian ownership of certain items, even as they use taxpayer money to buy said items.

And yeah, I have an agenda. Militarization of police is arguably the most direct assault on civil rights today, and it's something that must be addressed immediately. The ACLU recently launched a new initiative to document this phenomenon, I'm sure OP's article on MRAP acquisition will be mentioned.

Donut Destroyer

March 12, 2013, 12:21 AM

My criticism is not of individual officers' honorable and valuable service, but of how it may be misdirected by their superiors if they are not reigned in appropriately.

You said a lot there and I appreciate the thought that went into it. You see issues and problems, but you also understand how problems change and thus how the methods used to confront the problems must change. I have been in law enforcement for 36 years, since I was 18. Integrity, honesty and fairness have always been of utmost importance to me. I do recognize that I serve the public, whether you call it the city, parish (we don't have counties in LA remember), the state or "the government" in general, it is still a service to my community and its citizens. It pains me to no end when I hear of police corruption or abuse of authority and such behavior should not be tolerated by society or even by the brotherhood. Sadly, all of us who wear the badge are painted with the same brush as those who do wrong. It's human nature. I don't know how to solve the problems of corruption at higher levels because it happens everywhere there is greed and no mechanism to combat it....or where there are mechanisms in place that roadblock the efforts to combat it (I have my opinions here, but don't want to start a war).

A lot was said in previous posts about technical capabilities, but the down side was all that was focused on, and that's what my points have been. Tools, equipment, training are all good things when used properly. I'm not advocating crew served weapons or armor. If a police SWAT team has select fire weapons, so what? They are all legally registered and possessed and can be registered and possessed by civilians. If a patrol officer can carriy an agency issued M4 semi-auto, good, they should. There are a lot of knee jerk reactions going on in the form of legislation and it is to be seen how far and how outlandish it gets. It shouldn't hamper a police officer's ability to do his job or to have the best tools available to him.

mec

March 12, 2013, 12:28 AM

Forbes is accept the often stated 1.6 Billion Round figure and the math that goes with THAT figure. The math that worked toward explaining 350,000,000 rounds is stretched a bit thin at the current figure (even discounting a severe math error on the amount purchased last week.) It is time for somebody in Congress to hold Janet Napolitano and other administration operatives to account for this and whatever tanks and full auto rifles they have stockpiled. They also need to be grilled on a definition of potential terrorist that seems to encompass the bulk of people who may entertain patriotic or religious feelings and did not vote for the democrats. It would not hurt to have grownup look into these things given the history of democide just within the last century.